Despite this, countercyclical regulations would not be popular with the bankers.
Over a full cycle, such rules would probably require banks to have more capital
than under the existing system (and given the rescue of Bear Stearns, the rules
would need to apply to investment as well as commercial banks). Because money
tied up in capital earns lower returns, that would mean lower profits.
Many people feel that the bankers get fat and then want a bale out - what about the middle class folk? Banks are going to have do a great deal of public relations about this paradox which makes them seem greedy. But it is hard to feel much sympathy for bankers who rake in fortunes during the boom and require taxpayers to help them out in the bust (or make central banks jump through hoops for them, as the Bank of England has done this week—see article). An efficient financial sector is vital for a modern economy but trading securities has arguably achieved too much importance in the Anglo-Saxon world. Winston Churchill once said that he would rather see finance less proud and industry more content. That is not a bad motto for those devising a new set of banking regulations. Agreed about getting these mononolithic sized banks to have to cover themselves more and certainly they could afford it. There is one issue though. We are now in a global economy and Dubai is open for business to attract the financial trading away from London, NY, HK, stock exchanges, etc. Do keep that in mind when adding regulations. If the focus of a country and its people should be more on the meat and potatoes of running a good business that can compete in the global world, then capitalism, mercantilism, entrepreneuralism and the creation of small business should be given a better position in the education system and the publically owned media such as the BBC or CBC which, at times, appears to group all business under the same evil, greedy capitalist category. More venture capital TV shows like Dragons Den!